Hot answers tagged

11

The Tetragram in Hebrew is a proper name, and names do not have articles in Hebrew any more than they do in English. The article "the" arises in OP's KJV example because of the convention (beginning as early as the Septuagint) of representing the divine name by the word "Lord", which then has the knock on effect of requiring an article in English usage. ...


10

The translation of Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is certainly “the revelation of Jesus Christ.” The real question is whether the genitive phrase should be understood as a subjective genitive or objective genitive. Subjective genitive: “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is understood as “what Jesus Christ reveals” (ὃ ἀποκαλύπτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς ...


8

It is true that the "anarthrous" usage of "Jesus" (Ἰησοῦς) in Mark 1:9 is unusual. Of 82 occurrences of the name in Mark, only eight of them lack the article (1:1, 9, 24; 5:7; 10:47[x2]; 16:6, 19). There is something of a pattern, though, as aside from 1:1, 9; and 16:19 (which is in the disputed "long ending" of Mark), these occur with an epithet, not a "raw"...


7

It's probably αὐτὴν, as the modern critical editions have it. The witnesses The genitive pronoun αυτης is found (among consistently cited witnesses) only in the 4th-6th Century "correction" of Sinaiticus and the f1 group of miniscules ("Lake Group") from the 12th Century. The original (fourth C.) Sinaiticus and 𝔓64/67 omit the pronoun, a reading ...


7

The differences between and the new believers were prepared for eternal life (OP) and and all who were appointed for eternal life believed (NIV) are the flip-flopping of the finite verb and the participle and the translation of τεταγμένοι as “prepared” or “were appointed”. Although I understand how the OP arrived at this translation given ...


7

The Ark (Heb. אָרוֹן) was known as "the Ark of the testimony" (אֲרוֹן הָעֵדֻת cp. Exo. 25:22) and "the Ark of the covenant" (אֲרוֹן הַבְּרִית cp. Jos. 3:6) (among other things) since the two stone tablets contained therein were known as "the two tablets of the testimony" (שְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת; cp. Exo. 31:18) and "the two tablets of the covenant" (שְׁנֵי ...


6

I think the answer to your question is very simple: in verse 31 Jesus is referring to the disciples as a whole (ὑμᾶς, “you” plural), while in verse 32 he is addressing Simon/Peter (σύ, “thou” singular). You are aware, I trust, that in KJV the words “to have”, and the second “you” (in “to sift you as wheat”) are printed in italics, indicating that they are ...


5

Strictly speaking, Shua (Judah's wife) does not “תסף” Shelah as this isn't a verb which takes an object. This verb (root ysp) is a verb which means "add", or "continue", often in the company of the adverb עוד "again" as quoted above.1 It is a fairly common Hebrew idiom (see Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley §120d) for continuing a sequence of repeated actions. ...


5

The considerations here are much the same as those I discussed in a previous answer. I have attempted to develop those ideas and tailor it to the passage in question. [I]s it incorrect to read this clause as "love is God"? Yes, it is. In Greek, the subject of a clause can generally be identified as the substantive in the nominative case. However, ...


5

The OP requests clarification about why the English is not: ?For God so loved the world, that he gave the only son.... What is the meaning of this English, and does it accurately convey the Greek? To me, this construction is questionably intelligible. It seems to imply that there was never another son (of anyone), which is patently false, causing me ...


5

It is hard to know how else to translate this idiomatically in English otherwise. Even sticking with the MT, the verb sequence makes it clear that 2:10-14 is an "offline" digression describing the one-into-four river (a bit unnatural, that). The "waw consecutives" (or past narratives or whatever you want to call them) make a continuous sequence, bracketing ...


4

Susan's answer addresses most of the grammar details perfectly, so I'll leave all that aside and focus on what seems to be the central question: does "τεταγμένοι" mean "having been appointed" or "having been organized"? First, let's consider the conundrum you're in: you have a lexicon or two that say the meaning may be "arrange" or it may be "appoint" (and ...


4

I submit that there can be no fuller answer to this question than that given by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones some 70 years ago in a lecture on this verse.1 He summarizes the factors to consider in making a decision on how to translate this verse, and interpret it, presents evidence from the best scholarship of the 20th Century, and a short list of theologians ...


4

At first glance, «Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτὸν» appears to be a Semiticism (which requires a paraphrase or reconstruction into English rather than a literal translation). A. T. Robertson wrote,1 The Semitic influence is undoubted in the O. T. and seems clear in Luke, due probably to his reading the LXX or to his Aramaic sources. The infinitive ...


4

Although the Hebrew article is frequently used in a manner that is similar to the English definite article, there are certain contexts where this parallel breaks down. One such case when the Hebrew definite may correspond to an English indefinite is summarized by Waltke and O'Connor:1 The article may also mark nouns definite in the imagination, ...


4

The plural noun in classical Hebrew can do other "non-number" jobs than simply the plural of "majesty". One common one is the "plural of abstraction", and that is the way maḥămaddîm is typically understood here. Waltke-O'Connor para. 7.4.2(a) further refine this as refering to qualities: Cf. Joüon-Muraoka, who explain it precisely the same way: a "plural ...


4

Is "Egypt" an accurate translation of "Mitzrayim"? Yes. Ashraf Ezzat is making a bizarre claim. Here's the relevant information from the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, volume 8, p. 520:


3

I think it has to do with narrative continuity between verses. The basic idea is that on first mention of the birth of a new character, the prepositional phrase "to Jacob" is elevated to the position immediately following the verb in order to "front" the connection with the prior narrative and delay mention of the new character in the narrative — the ...


3

A recent discussion of this whole complex can be found in a lecture on "The Etymology of ‘Sabbath’", which included the following suggestion: “It seems possible that σάββατα is in fact a borrowing of the Old Aramaic singular noun in the determined state *šabbatā (Middle Aramaic: šabbṯā), which Greek speakers subsequently reinterpreted as a neuter plural and ...


3

Twice elsewhere the author of the epistle to the Hebrews uses a genitive construct wherein he does not precede the proper name by a definite article: Heb. 9:4: ἡ ῥάβδος Ἀαρὼν ("the rod of Aaron") Heb. 11:30: τὰ τείχη Ἰεριχὼ ("the walls of Jericho") Likewise, in Heb. 12:24, τὸν Ἅβελ could stand for τὸν αἷμα Ἅβελ, where Ἅβελ is an indeclinable proper name ...


3

The Greek name Abel (Ἅβελ) is one of the indeclinable proper names in the NT. So it can have a nominative, genitive, dative, or accusative idea with the same form. Other NT mentions of Abel in context of his blood have it in a genitive relationship, but clearly as part of a construction using the genitive article and in one case a genitive apposition: Mat ...


3

A Range of Possibilities There is certainly some versatile grammar here for the phrase in question: כִּ֧י אִם־פָּנָ֣יו אֶשָּׂ֗א לְבִלְתִּ֞י עֲשׂ֤וֹת עִמָּכֶם֙ נְבָלָ֔ה And while you state... I am primarily not concerned with the semantic range of the word נְבָלָ֔ה, or the potential implications of God doing נְבָלָ֔ה, although these issues ...


3

"kad" followed by an active participle means "when" or "while", but not "after" or "where". So your (1) and (3) are correct, the others are not possible.


2

It is possible that Yah is not formed by the first two letters of YHWH, but by the first and last. Nehemiah Gordon proposes this theory to account for Yah, while disagreeing with the scholarly consensus regarding the pronunciation Yahweh. He states that in ancient Hebrew, contractions were commonly formed by taking the first and final letters. ...


2

Among traditional Jewish Scholars there is a dispute about this verse. Onkelos (the aramaic translator of the Pentateuch) translates the verse to mean "when my people were led astray after gods I was forced to leave my fathers house" (וַהֲוָה כַּד טָעוּ עַמְמַיָּא בָּתַר עוֹבָדֵי יְדֵיהוֹן יָתִי קָרִיב יְיָ לְדַחַלְתֵּהּ מִבֵּית אַבָּא). Other scholars, such ...


2

The most that can be said -- from the perspective of a non-scholar, as I am, who can only study the scholars -- is that a number of competent scholars make a case for translations that differ from Holmstedt's. As to some of the discussion from those who have written above: The idea of a "period" of creation is implied in the context for any translator. The ...


2

My persuasion is that the Masoret (with mitigated revision due from Dead Sea Scrolls) is the only biblically authoritative text for the books Genesis to Malakhi. It is a mistake and even pointless to think about English/Latin grammatical concepts in order to accurately resolve the actual intention of the Hebrew text. To map Hebrew grammatical elements to ...


2

The kaf is the third radical (i.e., part of the root), not part of the suffix. The word of interest is אֽוֹלִיכֵם. This is a hifil imperfect first common singular* from הלך with a third masculine plural suffix, tsere-mem. (The he is not generally part of the 3mp suffix on imperfect forms.) The un-suffixed form ends in a kaf: אוֹלִיךְ. I will make them ...


2

As I said in the comments, the dictionary (LSJ) suggests that this is a matter of changing usage. Originally, ἐπιθυμέω took the genitive for its direct object, but in later antiquity we also see the accusative used in this role. So grammatically speaking, there wouldn't be any difference, and the variant αὐτὴν merely seems to reflect the change in usage ...


2

Challenges to Some of the Solutions Noted Idiom: Idioms have points to them; reasons they become idioms and a meaning adding distinction otherwise from a non-idiomatic statement. Here, there is nothing indicating the statement of the swarmers are to be taken in some idiomatic fashion. Simply saying "the swarmers" would have been sufficient. Poetic: There ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible